Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

People who believe there was an historical Jesus also base their belief on faith because there is NO actual pre 70 CE evidence.

So you say. And you misrepresent the evidence that does exist by stating that it was all intentionally falsified by forgers as fictitious hoaxes hundreds of years later.

 

[Brainache]

The only person claiming dejudge's arguments represent the whole variegated field of research into the origins of christianity is you.

When the hell did I make such a stupid statement?

dejudge's arguments represent ranting ignorance as far as I can tell.

But do keep up the constant strawmanning - if that's all you've got to offer.

Cheers!

proudfootz

Please stop lying about me.

Or, point out the constant strawmanning in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096

 

[Brainache]

Actually, Dejudge's writings as Dejuror have convinced virtually all the posters on the huge RatSkep thread. They view him as one of _the_ pace-setters today. He's taken as seriously as, if not more seriously than, most of the other posters there. That's how far the perspective there has now tilted toward mythicism galloping away.

That's a fact.

Stone

While that is truly sad for the participants at RatSkep, I don't think we should engage in a forum war. The Mods don't like that.

I'm pretty sure that Mythicism isn't going to destroy western society as we know it, but the general trend of anti-intellectualism in our culture is a bit of a worry.

When people feel they can dismiss an entire Academic discipline on the basis of a few youtube clips, it is getting ridiculous.

 

[proudfootz]

When the hell did I make such a stupid statement?

I didn't realize you were posting as 'Stone' as well.

dejudge's arguments represent ranting ignorance as far as I can tell.

Your opinion is every bit as valuable as dejudge's.

Please stop lying about me.

When you post under the name Stone, you seem to be rather less than precise in representing the arguments of others.

Unless, perhaps, you and Stone are two different persons...

 

[proudfootz]

I think it's Ehrman's point that most people who are convinced that there is a god don't base their beliefs on evidence, but on faith. To reject faith is not the same thing as to reject evidence.

Many who believe things like god, heaven, and hell do cite evidence: for example what they read in the Bible.

Ehrman seems to be saying going against the majority opinion is deplorable.

I think that is simply a fallacious argument and not a good jumping off point for his argument that, based on the Bible, Jesus must have existed.

 

[pakeha]

Is that referencing Christian's pitiful "extemporizing" in his halting conversation in Rostand's Cyrano before the later balcony scene when Cyrano has to speak for him in the shadows? (I've sometimes wondered if that latter scene was partly influenced by the scene in Mozart's Don Giovanni, when Leporello has to mime the Don's "Discendi, o gioia bella".)

Phil, don't expect mythers to pick up stuff like this. They're not educated. If they were, they wouldn't be mythers.

Stone

Mythers don't _know_ the criteria, and they view it as a badge of honor not to know. To get mythers to talk seriously about professional historians' criteria would be like getting creationists to talk seriously about punctuated equilibrium in evolution. Their "honor" forbids it. :-(

Stone

The latter claim is controversial because the mythers are the new fundies.

Stone

... There's just too much confirmation bias in the current generation of so-called "skeptics", and the book-burning mentality of mytherism may not be finally perceived until entire history departments and libraries are really under siege from mythers in the same way that schools are now under siege from creationists. Of course, by then, it will be too late, and with the inevitable downsizing of the blatant woo associated with all the religions that will then be dying off, what will be left will be a race of zombies whose swallowing of the myther Kool-Aid will be as pathetic as any previous generation of prayer-bead mumblers.

Stone

Someone having a bad hair day?

 

[proudfootz]

Someone having a bad hair day?

Believe me, it never gets much better than this. Often it's even worse.

You can really feel the spittle fly as he types his jeremiads!

 

[Brainache]

So, as you can see Mr Proudfootz, the HJ theory is in very little danger of being overturned while ever arguments like these are all the MJ side has got.

Well done again dejudge.

Keep it up.

The only person claiming dejudge's arguments represent the whole variegated field of research into the origins of christianity is you.

But do keep up the constant strawmanning - if that's all you've got to offer.

Cheers!

proudfootz

I didn't realize you were posting as 'Stone' as well.



Your opinion is every bit as valuable as dejudge's.



When you post under the name Stone, you seem to be rather less than precise in representing the arguments of others.

Unless, perhaps, you and Stone are two different persons...

Then why did you quote me, if you were responding to Stone?

I think you are confused.

 

[Brainache]

Many who believe things like god, heaven, and hell do cite evidence: for example what they read in the Bible.

Ehrman seems to be saying going against the majority opinion is deplorable.

I think that is simply a fallacious argument and not a good jumping off point for his argument that, based on the Bible, Jesus must have existed.

He might seem to be saying that to you.

To me it looks like he is saying you need a bit more than a youtube vid and a paperback to challenge an Academic consensus.

You can of course try to challenge an Academic consensus with those things, but you won't get very far.

 

[proudfootz]

Then why did you quote me, if you were responding to Stone?

I think you are confused.

Maybe so.

But I was responding to the content, and whoever wrote it seemed to imagine that dejudge represents 'all the arguments MJ has'.

If you want to carp about lying, attend to the log in your own eye.

 

[proudfootz]

He might seem to be saying that to you.

To me it looks like he is saying you need a bit more than a youtube vid and a paperback to challenge an Academic consensus.

You've posted links to YouTube videos yourself, so check yourself.

For someone who claims to be familiar with the scholarship of the Dutch radicals, you seem to conveniently ignore the deep roots of skepticism toward the HJ hypothesis rather more often than is healthy.

 

[Brainache]

Maybe so.

But I was responding to the content, and whoever wrote it seemed to imagine that dejudge represents 'all the arguments MJ has'.

If you want to carp about lying, attend to the log in your own eye.

Not maybe at all, this one is a certainty.

That's right, all the arguments the MJ has, not all of the arguments for the origins of Christianity, as you claimed I said.

 

[Brainache]

You've posted links to YouTube videos yourself, so check yourself.

For someone who claims to be familiar with the scholarship of the Dutch radicals, you seem to conveniently ignore the deep roots of skepticism toward the HJ hypothesis rather more often than is healthy.

There has been a few documents come to light since those guys.

The Cairo Genizah, Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Scholars have a lot more to work with now than those guys did.

If you have to pretend that I am some kind of Christian, to make yourself feel better, it wouldn't be the first time...

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

IanS,

It has been quite nice discussing this topic with you. You strike me as a very intelligent and thoughtful person who expresses him/herself well. We do not completely agree, but that is the basis for debate, and I respect your stance.

But this thread has devolved into the typical sniping and petty attacks that always seem to arise in this place. I left this forum, under another name, 2 or 3 years ago because I couldn't stand all the poor argumentation and I see it hasn't changed much around here.

Please continue your higher standard of discourse. I'm afraid I really haven't much tolerance for the style of 'discussion' that has taken over JREF in the past few years. It used to be a more intellectual environment several years ago.

Good luck to you.

 

[pakeha]

pakeha

Brainache's right. Your source is restricting the term Christian to Pauline Christian only. That there were other people, the Jerusalem group who were also called Christians is more than probable. And they might well have been active in the Revolt. They consisted of "myriads" of "staunch defenders of the Law", as James is made to say in Acts. For early use, by members of the Jerusalem group, of the name Christian, see Acts 11. This suggests that the term came to be used prior to the split between Paul and the Jerusalem group.

I have reservations about using Acts as an historical source and I'm not alone.
The much better informed people at the Westar Institute seem to think Acts is less than reliable as a source for possible 1st century Christianity.

Their conclusions:
"The Acts Seminar met twice a year beginning in 2001 and concluded its work at the spring Westar meeting in 2011. Dennis Smith, the seminar chair, compiled a list of the top ten accomplishment of the Acts Seminar:

The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical reassessment.
Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable source can be identified for Acts.
Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul.
Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.
Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related literature.
The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling devices.
Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity."

Obviously, the conclusions they arrived at are not written in stone, but I'm glad to see I'm not alone in thinking Acts is not a go-to source for the 1st century church's practices.

At the end of the day, what I mean to say is that Acts doesn't seem like the best source for learning about what Christians of the first century may or may not have called themselves.



ETA
Another comment on Acts can be found here:
"I posted a series on Richard Pervo’s work showing the Acts to be largely made up of Hellenistic novelistic components. I like Bonz’s idea — though she does not prove it — that Acts is modelled on the myth of Virgil’s Aeneid. The early scenes of idyllic communism being gradually corrupted are straight from ancient utopian (platonic) myths and the tale of the migration of the spiritual centre of the world from the Jerusalem Temple — via Troy — to Rome is certainly reminiscent of the travels and mission of Aeneas and the founding of Rome."
http://vridar.org/2012/02/03/the-ea...an-movement-couchoud-continued/#comment-12675

The first century Christian movement seems all the more elusive the closer it's examined.



ETA
Vridar has an entire series of the literary genre of Acts, starting here:
http://vridar.org/2007/11/12/the-literary-genre-of-acts-1-the-prologue/

 

[Craig B]

I have reservations about using Acts as an historical source and I'm not alone.

So have I. That's why I use expressions like

... as James is made to say in Acts.

 

[pakeha]

So you did!
But why cite Acts at all?

 

[Brainache]

So you did!
But why cite Acts at all?

I would point out that the section of Acts that includes James' little speech about Zealots is in what some Scholars call the "We" document. A part of the book which suddenly jumps into a first person narrative about their visit to Jerusalem where James orders Paul to go to the Temple and perform cleansing rituals etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author...we.22_passages_as_fragments_of_earlier_source

In the "we" passages (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1– 28), the narrative is written in the first person plural — but the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". Some[who?] regard the "we" passages as fragments of a second document, part of some earlier account, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts.[citation needed] Many modern scholars have expressed doubt that the author of Luke-Acts was the physician Luke, and critical opinion on the subject was assessed to be roughly evenly divided near the end of the 20th century.[3] Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text.

Alternatively Vernon Robbins (1978) regards the "we" passages a Greek rhetorical device used for sea voyages.[19] However, more recent scholars have since written on the incoherence of Robbins' sea voyages literary device theory by arguing that contemporary first-person accounts were the exception rather than the rule, that Robbins' cited literature is too broad in both linguistic range (Egyptian, Greek, and Latin) and its temporal extent (1800 BC to third century AD), many of the literary sea voyages cited represented the author's actual presence and were not literary devices at all, many of his examples use the third-person throughout and not just during sea voyages, etc.[20]

It looks like Acts might be a compilation/distortion of earlier sources.

According to Hegesippus or Epiphanius (one of those blokes) there was an Ebionite "Acts of the Apostles" which has disappeared, but it apparently contained a different story than the Acts we all know and love...

 

[Craig B]

So you did!
But why cite Acts at all?

I hope you don't mean: it's in "the Bible". The Bible is not inspired by God. Therefore it is false. Therefore Acts is false. Therefore every part of it is the same as every other part, i.e. false. So why quote it at all?

There's a discipline called "higher criticism". But those who take the view I gently mock in this post are perhaps engaged in "lower criticism".

Anyway, please let me know why I shouldn't consider Acts when looking at the relevant evidence for the events under discussion.

 

[dejudge]

I have reservations about using Acts as an historical source and I'm not alone.
The much better informed people at the Westar Institute seem to think Acts is less than reliable as a source for possible 1st century Christianity.

Their conclusions:
"The Acts Seminar met twice a year beginning in 2001 and concluded its work at the spring Westar meeting in 2011. Dennis Smith, the seminar chair, compiled a list of the top ten accomplishment of the Acts Seminar:

The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical reassessment.
Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable source can be identified for Acts.
Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul.
Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.
Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related literature.
The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling devices.
Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity."

Obviously, the conclusions they arrived at are not written in stone, but I'm glad to see I'm not alone in thinking Acts is not a go-to source for the 1st century church's practices.

At the end of the day, what I mean to say is that Acts doesn't seem like the best source for learning about what Christians of the first century may or may not have called themselves.

It is completely in error that the author of Acts used the Pauline letters.

1. There is NOT a single verse from a Pauline letter in Acts of the Apostles.

2. There is NO mention of the Pauline Revealed Gospel [Remission of Sins by the Resurrection of Jesus]

3. There is NO claim in Acts that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches.

4. There is NO claim in Acts that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon.

5. The author of Acts claimed Saul/Paul RECEIVED letters FROM the CHURCH of Jerusalem. See Acts 15
6. The so-called Pauline letters do NOT represent any period of the early development of the actual Jesus cult

7. NO actual Jesus cult Church received Pauline letters--The Jesus cult originated AFTER c 70 CE.

8. Saul/Paul in Acts and Paul of the Pauline Corpus are fiction characters.

9. Apologetics [Origen and Eusebius] claimed Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed.

10. Another Apologetic [the Muratorian Canon] admitted the Pauline letters were written and modeled AFTER the Apocalypse of John.

12. Apologetics of the 2nd and 3rd century do NOT acknowledge a character called Paul and do NOT show that he was involved in the early development of the Jesus cult.

13. The Synoptics and gJohn do NOT contain the Pauline Revealed Gospel [Remission of Sins by the Resurrection of Jesus]

Acts and the entire Pauline Corpus are equally fictitious and do not represent any actual period of the development of the Jesus cult of Christians.

It has already been argued by Bible Believers that the Entire Pauline Corpus is NOT authentic.